IMDb रेटिंग
6.4/10
1.7 हज़ार
आपकी रेटिंग
अपनी भाषा में प्लॉट जोड़ेंFor the first time in history a woman is appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she becomes a friendly rival to a liberal associate.For the first time in history a woman is appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she becomes a friendly rival to a liberal associate.For the first time in history a woman is appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court, where she becomes a friendly rival to a liberal associate.
- पुरस्कार
- 3 कुल नामांकन
फ़ीचर्ड समीक्षाएं
This is a film about the first woman appointed to the Supreme Court, released about the same time that Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court - Sandra Day O'Connor - with the female justice, Justice Ruth Loomis played by Jill Clayburgh, and Walter Matthau as her fellow justice and ideological nemesis, Justice Dan Snow. The chief justice is played by Barnard Hughes who seems to just want to keep the peace and keep a low profile, not really what you would expect from a chief justice. Weirdly nobody calls him by name, they just call him C.J.
This thing is really a time capsule, and that was surprising since I was 23 when it was released and thought of 1981 as modern times. At Loomis' confirmation hearings she is asked if being a woman will influence her decisions and why she doesn't have any children! Even the justices make sexist remarks like saying "the perfume will make the place smell better" and wondering if she will put up curtains! The really interesting thing for me was that I had a hard time telling whether Loomis and Matthau were just disagreeing on individual cases or if one was right and the other left or if one or the other was supposed to be a moderate! Not until the end does the film clearly tell you which is which with a funny line about cab fare and liberals never having money.
There are two cases the justices spar over - one is about a pornographic film that the maker says is actually an educational documentary, and the other is a large corporation's possible attempt to squash the development of an idea that would have competed with their established products.
Loomis naively talks about the virtues of big corporations and how they only want to build up America and their stockholders. Matthau does a monologue about defending everybody's right to free speech no matter how offensive. Today nobody believes big corporations are inherently good, and both libs and conservatives would like to squish the other side's free speech rights if they could.
The dialogue could have been better for the material, but there is a mini-mystery towards the end that gives the film an interesting twist. Matthau is basically just playing a more erudite version of Oscar the slob from The Odd Couple. Matthau's character's wife (Jan Sterling) leaves him in the middle of the movie because - I'm not sure - the reason she gave was that her husband did not know what kind of wallpaper they had, but she made sure to take that fur coat with her! Probably she left so that there could be a possibility of sexual tension between Matthau's and Clayburgh's characters. I'll let you watch and find out if that actually happens.
I loved it if for no other reason than to take a look back at how politics used to be. I'd give it an 8/10 but YMMV. Especially when you see the credits and find that Robert E. Lee co-wrote the play and the screenplay! It probably could not get screened today because of that! Oh how times have changed!
This thing is really a time capsule, and that was surprising since I was 23 when it was released and thought of 1981 as modern times. At Loomis' confirmation hearings she is asked if being a woman will influence her decisions and why she doesn't have any children! Even the justices make sexist remarks like saying "the perfume will make the place smell better" and wondering if she will put up curtains! The really interesting thing for me was that I had a hard time telling whether Loomis and Matthau were just disagreeing on individual cases or if one was right and the other left or if one or the other was supposed to be a moderate! Not until the end does the film clearly tell you which is which with a funny line about cab fare and liberals never having money.
There are two cases the justices spar over - one is about a pornographic film that the maker says is actually an educational documentary, and the other is a large corporation's possible attempt to squash the development of an idea that would have competed with their established products.
Loomis naively talks about the virtues of big corporations and how they only want to build up America and their stockholders. Matthau does a monologue about defending everybody's right to free speech no matter how offensive. Today nobody believes big corporations are inherently good, and both libs and conservatives would like to squish the other side's free speech rights if they could.
The dialogue could have been better for the material, but there is a mini-mystery towards the end that gives the film an interesting twist. Matthau is basically just playing a more erudite version of Oscar the slob from The Odd Couple. Matthau's character's wife (Jan Sterling) leaves him in the middle of the movie because - I'm not sure - the reason she gave was that her husband did not know what kind of wallpaper they had, but she made sure to take that fur coat with her! Probably she left so that there could be a possibility of sexual tension between Matthau's and Clayburgh's characters. I'll let you watch and find out if that actually happens.
I loved it if for no other reason than to take a look back at how politics used to be. I'd give it an 8/10 but YMMV. Especially when you see the credits and find that Robert E. Lee co-wrote the play and the screenplay! It probably could not get screened today because of that! Oh how times have changed!
You have to hand it to Walter Matthau, the older he gets, the more feisty his characters become!!
This is a sorely underappreciated minor gem with two brilliant performances from Matthau and Clayburgh. Their chemistry is wonderful. All in all the film is clever, funny, original, and down right fun!!!
If you happen to find this film at your local video store, check it out...its well worth discovering!
This is a sorely underappreciated minor gem with two brilliant performances from Matthau and Clayburgh. Their chemistry is wonderful. All in all the film is clever, funny, original, and down right fun!!!
If you happen to find this film at your local video store, check it out...its well worth discovering!
When I first saw this movie, I had a discussion with a friend of mine over many of the things shown in this movie. After several years I again had another discussion with the same friend and it again was very interesting although very different. I can say this about two handful of movies. I give it a 10...
Walter Matthau will always be one of my favorites from the sleazy bar-owner in King Creole to Hopscotch(another unusual pairing with Glenda Jackson)to countless other films he has appeared in... His droll comments and quick wit are hilarious.... and Jill Clayburgh does stand up to the occasion of matching him in legal argument(although scripted).... Of all the Matthau pieces, I think this is well worth the time, though I think the title(refers to the first sitting each year of the Supreme Court Judges)could have been a little more enticing to the general public... I think as a result of the title this movie has been largely overlooked... It is a funny, believable piece, well worth catching if you can!
Clayburgh did a fantastic job of balancing Matthau's usual strong performance. The two struck a rapport that I never expected, and they ran off with the movie. I gave it an 8 instead of a 10 mostly because the script and cast couldn't keep up with them. Also, they have some weak spots when they go for light-hearted comedy. For me, the real shining light of the entire show was the way the two managed to continue an understandable discussion of the hot issues in jurisprudence of that time -- at least fifteen minutes of viewing are justified by that historical perspective alone. In short, it's heart-warming, well-acted in the leads, and technically tighter than most viewers would realize.
क्या आपको पता है
- ट्रिवियाThe Justice Dan Snow character played by Walter Matthau is based on real-life Justice William O. Douglas, who was appointed to the Supreme Court at the age of 40. Douglas was one of the great liberals in High Court history who believed so nearly absolutely in the First Amendment protections of free speech that he did not attend screenings of pornographic films (a plot device in the movie) as he believed that the movies or any form of expression could not be censored under the U.S. Constitution. Thus, he did not need to see the film as he was going to automatically vote against censoring it.
- गूफ़Justice Loomis views a pornographic film to decide it it has "redeeming social or artistic importance". This is an outdated standard for obscenity which was superseded by the so-called "Miller test" in 1973.
- भाव
Justice Dan Snow: She wants me to disqualify myself because I won't go down there and sit through that pile of crap?
Chief Justice Crawford: Uh, well, uh...
Justice Dan Snow: So its crap. What if it is crap? That's not the point. Crap's got the right to be crap.
Chief Justice Crawford: Drop the legal language, Dan.
टॉप पसंद
रेटिंग देने के लिए साइन-इन करें और वैयक्तिकृत सुझावों के लिए वॉचलिस्ट करें
- How long is First Monday in October?Alexa द्वारा संचालित
विवरण
- रिलीज़ की तारीख़
- कंट्री ऑफ़ ओरिजिन
- भाषा
- इस रूप में भी जाना जाता है
- Ein Montag im Oktober
- फ़िल्माने की जगहें
- सांता एना, कैलिफोर्निया, यूएसए(on location)
- उत्पादन कंपनी
- IMDbPro पर और कंपनी क्रेडिट देखें
बॉक्स ऑफ़िस
- US और कनाडा में सकल
- $1,24,80,249
- दुनिया भर में सकल
- $1,24,80,249
इस पेज में योगदान दें
किसी बदलाव का सुझाव दें या अनुपलब्ध कॉन्टेंट जोड़ें